Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Cotchery/Underwood > LaFell/Ginn


Panthro

Recommended Posts

The way I see it, Tolbert has more versatility, and can be productive in multiple ways. Which gives him comparable value to Shockey. Shockey did what he did well. Tolbert does the same. So...to me, trying to compare 2 different positions is a tough proposition at best.

 

 

 

by no means was I comparing the 2 positions or even the 2 players..  well, not in a vacuum...  Matter of fact, my only point was it's almost impossible to explain why we practically ran away from one of our most efficient offenses to date (top 5 that year).

 

Then for some reason it was brought up that we didn't use a FB in 2011, but that's a moot point since we barely used Tolbert in 2012.  This is starting to shape my point.  Whoever had the pull enough to change schemes (obviously Chud would be the 1st guess, but Rivera has the final say) ran away from what was never broke only to not utilize the glorified FB we paid 15mil/3years to acquire.

 

So whatever is being brought up should be viewed towards the discussion which is..  why fix what was not broken?  and if the decision to use a glorified FB was to make up for losing a TE, then still, the question remains..  why not utilize that player if that is the game plan?  Even last year, Tolbert wasn't much of a piece to our passing puzzle despite getting more touches since Stew was hurt.  He had his role but my question isn't based around the run game, but what Tolbert's skill set was supposed to replace with losing that 2nd TE role in the passing game...

 

 

however, forget all that.  Still today we should be using a 2TE set in our game plan.  More than a fair share of athletic TEs that can stretch the field and catch the ball enough to balance out our offense could be sought after to open up the middle of the field and give our less than stellar WRs (Smitty included last year, and just for frame of reference, even at the peak of his career could use the help) to get open or at least face more 1 on 1 coverage.  Olsen is the main cog so no where should we be assuming this is about finding another Jimmy Graham, although it seems a good scouting department (or Gettleman) has a decent chance at finding one in later rounds...

 

 

 

somehow this point is getting lost in translation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by no means was I comparing the 2 positions or even the 2 players..  well, not in a vacuum...  Matter of fact, my only point was it's almost impossible to explain why we practically ran away from one of our most efficient offenses to date (top 5 that year).

 

Then for some reason it was brought up that we didn't use a FB in 2011, but that's a moot point since we barely used Tolbert in 2012.  This is starting to shape my point.  Whoever had the pull enough to change schemes (obviously Chud would be the 1st guess, but Rivera has the final say) ran away from what was never broke only to not utilize the glorified FB we paid 15mil/3years to acquire.

 

So whatever is being brought up should be viewed towards the discussion which is..  why fix what was not broken?  and if the decision to use a glorified FB was to make up for losing a TE, then still, the question remains..  why not utilize that player if that is the game plan?  Even last year, Tolbert wasn't much of a piece to our passing puzzle despite getting more touches since Stew was hurt.  He had his role but my question isn't based around the run game, but what Tolbert's skill set was supposed to replace with losing that 2nd TE role in the passing game...

 

 

however, forget all that.  Still today we should be using a 2TE set in our game plan.  More than a fair share of athletic TEs that can stretch the field and catch the ball enough to balance out our offense could be sought after to open up the middle of the field and give our less than stellar WRs (Smitty included last year, and just for frame of reference, even at the peak of his career could use the help) to get open or at least face more 1 on 1 coverage.  Olsen is the main cog so no where should we be assuming this is about finding another Jimmy Graham, although it seems a good scouting department (or Gettleman) has a decent chance at finding one in later rounds...

 

 

 

somehow this point is getting lost in translation.

Okay, now that you've spelled it out. Yes. I agree that with the Offense we seem to want to run, a 2TE set would seem to be the way to go. Gives you an extra blocker, without losing a receiving threat. It does offer a world of possibilities. With the run and the pass both being an option from the same set.

Plus if one of your TE is athletic enough, you could slide him into the slot. Defenses would have to adjust, cuz some teeny nickel back would be a mismatch from hell. Maybe that opens up another part of the field?

 

 

Barner looked like he was a kid amongst men last year. He went flying at every bit of contact.

Got a weather eye out for both him, and Pilares. Really hoping they both come back ready to go. They both can add some speed to the lineup. If they come in ready. Especially, as you said, Barner. Bring it kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cotchery is better than lafell. But we have NO clear cut evidence that Ginn really is better than Underwood. Okay, maybe Ginn is a better returner. But what is really important is offense. Field position is great! But if you cant do anything with it (us last year when not playing scrubs), then it really doesnt matter. We will be able to tell when Underwood gets his snaps this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...